440 replies to this topic

[Anyone00]

So who else wants to see a camo pattern for the Blackjack that looks like a bunch of areas of different colors that have been stitched together; like the Osamu Tezuka character?

[Fire and Salt]

Great job on the artwork.... Looks like a blackjack... But better.


I think this might be my next medium. I've been using the trebuchet a bit lately and I enjoy it, but I wish I could stick some lasers in the side torsos, since I always get my arms blown off. (Curse you ac20 hunchie that I met on the tourmaline desert)

I am liking the LL + ssrm variant too. Will have to refrain from using the lasers much at close range due to heat, though.

[FrostCollar]

What builds are people actually expecting for the Blackjack? I'm certain we'll see some BJ-1DB poptartlets, but I can't see any way a dual autocannon build will be remotely viable, especially not a 2 AC/2 build.

[Volt Corsair]

FrostCollar, on 30 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

What builds are people actually expecting for the Blackjack? I'm certain we'll see some BJ-1DB poptartlets, but I can't see any way a dual autocannon build will be remotely viable, especially not a 2 AC/2 build.

I'll likely make a passing attempt at a Omni Blackjack Alt Config A or C. I'm going to wait until Smurfy has the details before I go spending mc/cb when it pops out of the mech assembly lines.

[RagingOyster]

SquareSphere, on 07 November 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

... THIS IS SO WRONG! This is Omni mech version, the battlemech NEVER had UAC5s as default weapons! This mech breaks the time line. The omni Blackjack wasn't available until 3057, that's post Tukkayyid!

if they were going to start announcing "future" mech they should have started with Clan invasion mechs

I'm calling out who ever decided to include this mech at this phase!

Not an omni
Learn to read.

[Strum Wealh]

FrostCollar, on 30 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

What builds are people actually expecting for the Blackjack? I'm certain we'll see some BJ-1DB poptartlets, but I can't see any way a dual autocannon build will be remotely viable, especially not a 2 AC/2 build.

I imagine that there will be a lot of common builds between the BJ-1DB and BJ-3 (both are jumping energy boats), with the latter being more popular since it would have a minimum of one energy hardpoint in each arm and each side-torso while the former would likely have all of its weapons clustered in its (rather high-sitting) arms.

The BJ-1DC has the greatest number of minimum hardpoints (a minimum of eight - two energy hardpoints in each side-torso, one energy hardpoint in each arm, and one ballistic hardpoint in each arm), but is the one variant that is stock without Jump Jets (and so likely would not be jump-capable for MWO).

Finally, the basic BJ-1 carries a ballistic hardpoint in each arm, and an energy hardpoint in each arm and each side-torso, and is jump-capable as well - which also gives it substantial overlap with the BJ-1DB.

Each of the Blackjacks start with a 180-rated engine (Standard, not XL, is stock for all), giving them a cap of 235 and a base maximum top speed (that is, without pilot efficiencies and such) of ~85 kph.

Twin AC/2s come to 12 tons (without ammo).
Twin AC/5s come to 16 tons (without ammo).
Twin UAC/5s come to 18 tons (without ammo).

I expect a fair number of (relatively) fast dual- and/or quad-PPC/ER-PPC/ERLL poptarts and hill-humpers...
EDIT: fixed links...

Edited by Strum Wealh, 08 May 2013 - 04:52 PM.

[Butane9000]

I still want this. This'll get me back into the mediums easily.

I'm going out on a limb and figuring the weight of the BJ-1 will be this

45 - 12 (2xAC2) = 33 - 4 (4xML) = 29 - 9 (STD 180 Engine) = 20 - 2 (2 tons AC2 ammo) = 18 - 2 (4xJJ C4) = 16 - 4 (4x STD HS) = 12 - 4.5 (structure) = 7.5 tons left for armor

The 7.5 tons of armor seems fitting due to sources saying it has "heavy armor" and considering the 50 ton Hunchback packs 10 tons of armor it doesn't seem that far off. I added a ton of AC2 ammo but I could be wrong about that. It could also be that the jump jets will weight 1 ton a piece for 3 total (assuming they only give 1 ton of AC2 ammo).

The BJ-1DB will be

45 - 10 (2xLL) = 35 - 4.5 (structure) = 30.5 - 4 (4xML) = 26.5 - 7.5 (armor) = 19 - 9 (STD 180 Engine) = 10 - 8 (heatsinks) = 2 - 2 (4xJJ C4).

Now it could be this will have 4 jump jets. I can't find anything in TROs on what specific class so I'm going off the other medium with JJ's (Trebuchet).

The BJ-1DC

45 - 12 (2xAC2) = 33 - 2 (AC2 ammo) = 31 - 1 (2xSL) = 30 - 4 (4xML) = 28 - 9 (STD 180 Engine) = 19 - 7 (heatsinks) = 12 - 4.5 (structure) = 7.5 (armor)

and finally the BJ-3

45 - 9 (180 Engine) = 36 - 14 (2xPPC) = 22 - 4 (4xML) = 18 - 4.5 (structure) = 13.5 - 7.5 (armor) = 6 - 2 (4xJJ C4) = 4 - 4 (4xDHS)

So:

BJ-1
2x AC2 w/ 2 tons ammo
4x Medium Laser
Standard 180 Engine
11 standard heat sinks
4 Jump Jets
Firepower: 24/175

BJ-1DB
2x Large Laser
4x Medium Laser
Standard 180 Engine
15 standard heat sinks
4 Jump Jets
firepower: 38/175

BJ-1DC
2x AC2 w/ 2 tons ammo
4x Medium Laser
2x Small Laser
14 standard heatsinks
Standard 180 Engine
Firepower: 28/175

BJ-3
2x PPC
4x Medium Laser
4x JJ
Standard 180 Engine
11 Double Heat Sinks
Firepower: 40/175

I think I got all that right...

[Sturmforge]

I don't see them adding the BJ-1DB. The set-up and hard points are pretty much the same as the BJ-3.

[Butane9000]

Sturmforge, on 30 April 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

I don't see them adding the BJ-1DB. The set-up and hard points are pretty much the same as the BJ-3.

Honestly one could argue for all the Highlanders as they have VERY similar hard points.

[Bernard Matthaios]

I'm super excited, I love my mediums!

[DeaconW]

Fixed this part of the narrative for the current game meta...

"Right flank you have incoming LRMs, repeat, incoming LRMs."
"Roger, getting into cover now! Meh." replied one.
"We're on it Don't care." said another.
"HunchbackHighlander, AtlasHighlander, JennerHighlander, another HunchbackHighlander, K2 and some n00b in a trial Raven spotted!" shouted yet another, as they closed into circles poptarded with each other, desperately trying to outflank out-PPC snipe their opponents.

[Strum Wealh]

Sturmforge, on 30 April 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

I don't see them adding the BJ-1DB. The set-up and hard points are pretty much the same as the BJ-3.

As noted in my previous post (including a link to the record sheet), the canon BJ-1DB only has hardpoints in its arms (that is, no hardpoints in the torso sections or Head) while the hardpoints on the BJ-3 are spread across the arms and side torsos.

Also, the JagerMech also had a not-too-dissimilar issue to that raised here (with its JM6-S and JM6-DD being identical in minimum hardpoint requirements), as did the Highlanders (particularly the HGN-732 and HGN-733, and only slightly less so with the HGN-733C).
As PGI was able to resolve the issue with each of those, the Blackjack shouldn't present too much of a problem...?

Absent an official variant announcement (to the best of my knowledge), I'm fairly sure we would be getting the BJ-1 (the "primary/'default' variant") and the BJ-3 (the 3050/late-3040s "recovered LosTech variant" ).

So, the question becomes one of whether we would get both the BJ-1DB (jumping, all-energy, arm-weapons-only) and the BJ-1DC (non-jumping, mixed energy/ballistics, greatest number of hardpoints), or only one or the other (and is so, which one).

[TheSteelRhino]

Medium mechs were supposed to be the workhorses of the inner sphere (ok..house steiner not included). But we don't need any more "sluggish" mediums. Cicada is a Fat Locust, Treb is..just...soft with easily popped side torsos (Why couldn't it have been a dervish?) and is really meant to be a fire support mech, not a brawler.

HBK already fills the slow medium brawler role (or FS role if you use the 4J with LRMs) . And Centurion is somewhere in between.

There needs to be advantages and disads with every weight class. And right now it feels like medium mechs are kind of getting the raw end of the stick. Yes, they can be effective in groups, but they still feel lacking and almost all have slow stock speeds. (Cicada doesn't count in this one, a 40 ton Assassin would have been a better choice imho)

Unless PGI does something special with the Blackjack, I'm afraid it will be mediocre at best.

PGI needs to do a better job of making sure certain weight classes provide some sort of advantage. Total dropweights, reduced maintenance costs ....something. Right now there is no reason, other than pure personal preference to take a medium battlemech for a lot of players. Unless you group up and plan to ahead. It's not very practical for just straight up PUG matches.

But, as I do love the medium weight class..I shall continue to try and make it fit

Edited by Rhinehardt Ritter, 01 May 2013 - 09:06 AM.

[Hobo Dan]

I am looking forward to the Blackjack because I love Mediums. I will use it becasue I love mediums.

Sadly, with the way the Matchmaker currently works, people who do not love Mediums will be forced to answer this question: Why should I take the Blackjack over the Jaggermech?

[TheSteelRhino]

Why would I take the Blackjack over the Jaegermech? Because I love medium mechs. There is not good reason to other than that at this point in the game that I am aware of. I guess so you can have jumpjets? But due to the "slowness" of the jumps I don't think it's worth it. I want a FAST "jump" to help get out of harms way in a lighter weight mech.

But PGI has not done a good job of making individual chassis's "special" so far. Although the CN9D, gave a glimmer of hope.

I'm hoping they will start leveraging quirks a bit more to make certain chassis's more desireable.....

[Sennin]

Strum Wealh, on 01 May 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

So, the question becomes one of whether we would get both the BJ-1DB (jumping, all-energy, arm-weapons-only) and the BJ-1DC (non-jumping, mixed energy/ballistics, greatest number of hardpoints), or only one or the other (and is so, which one).

I would prefer they implemented both but I am partial to the BJ-1DB from using it in MPBT: Solaris and the tabletop. I know they do no translate so well into MWO but I believe this would be the exception because their are few 'Mechs that mount all energy + jump configurations that are considered failures in MWO and the concept art appears to give the Blackjack a nice slim profile. Hopefully the devs would give it some more energy points or better jump jet/engine capacity to set it apart from the BJ-3. Oh well, this is just me getting my runaway thoughts out of my head.

[verybad]

Think I'll pick up one of thse when they go live, but which. I want the worst one. Skipped the Highlander, too popular for me, but this and the Orion should fill out my Garage nicely.

[Sennin]

Just another open thought but the dev team could not really go wrong if they only implemented the BJ-1, BJ-2 and BJ-3 variants initially. Those three essentially provide all the diversity the platform has to offer to MWO.

[Strum Wealh]

Sennin, on 01 May 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Just another open thought but the dev team could not really go wrong if they only implemented the BJ-1, BJ-2 and BJ-3 variants initially. Those three essentially provide all the diversity the platform has to offer to MWO.

However, the BJ-2 (not to be confused with the heavier BJ2-O OmniMech) is currently out of timeline - the BJ-2 is not available until 3052.

[Sennin]

Strum Wealh, on 01 May 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

However, the BJ-2 (not to be confused with the heavier BJ2-O OmniMech) is currently out of timeline - the BJ-2 is not available until 3052.

The date must have changed with 3050 upgrade because I am looking at the original TRO 3050 http://users.anet.co...-blackjack.html and that is not the date of production. A darn shame really because the BJ-2 would be a great variant for MWO.


EDIT: Added link to the orginal BJ-2 TRO 3050.

Edited by Sennin, 01 May 2013 - 08:31 PM.